Bill Rammell: The Scottish Executive Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, (Mr. Allan Wilson), and Steven Effingham, Divisional Manager of the European Union Division of the DWP/DfES Joint International Unit represented the UK during the informal meeting of EU Education Ministers in Vienna.
	Ministers discussed the European Commission's recent consultation on the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). They broadly welcomed the Commission's outline of the EQF, with many seeing the wide consultation process as the correct way to ensure that the proposal is developed in a bottom-up way with the support of all relevant stakeholders.
	Ministers agreed that the EQF should provide a lightweight and flexible mechanism for supporting comparability—not automatic recognition—of qualifications in different member states. They supported the idea of establishing a European framework of eight qualification levels to which national authorities could relate their qualifications.
	Ministers also supported the idea that the EQF levels would be accompanied by descriptors of skills and competences that learners should have acquired. They were concerned, however, that these descriptors should not be too detailed, with many calling for a simplification and refinement of the Commission's draft descriptors.
	The UK believed that the EQF could make a real contribution to the Lisbon process, particularly if developed in consultation with stakeholders, and if the needs of citizens were kept at the forefront. UK noted the link to sectoral qualifications, and the potential for sectoral skills frameworks also to be aligned to the EQF.
	Most countries flagged up the need for the EQF to be complementary to the qualifications framework being developed for the European higher education area under the Bologna process.
	There was general agreement that the EQF should undergo an extended phase of piloting and testing before being fully rolled out. The Commission agreed to present a paper summarising the main areas of agreement between member states as a basis for moving forwards. The Commission would then set up a technical working group with representatives of all member states in order to work up the specifications of the EQF (in particular the levels descriptors). The Commission intends to come forward with a formal proposal for the EQF in the autumn of 2006.
	On the European Institute of Technology, Ministers all agreed with the Commission's analysis concerning the so-called "knowledge triangle" of education-research-innovation, and Europe's poor performance in connecting these elements and exploiting the economic value of research outcomes. Most delegations welcomed the Commission's communication on the European Institute of Technology as a contribution to this debate. Most had questions concerning, inter alia.
	The legal status of the BIT under the Treaties;
	degree awarding powers given that this is a national competence;
	funding issues, including potential overlap with the European Research Council and the Framework Programme for research;
	intellectual property rights;
	the relationship between the governing board and the knowledge communities;
	secondment of resources to the BIT (benefits it for the sending institution?).
	Some countries signalled strong scepticism. The UK, while enthusiastic about the Commission's efforts to take forward the Hampton Court agenda, stressed the need for more work with stakeholders, especially the universities and business sectors. Setting up a new institution may not be the best way forward. UK stressed the need to build on existing partnerships, and suggested setting up an expert group to look at this issue, and to produce recommendations on issues such as funding, greater institutional autonomy and closer collaboration with business.
	The Commission concluded the discussion by assuring Ministers that stakeholders would be consulted before the Commission came forward with a proposal. The Commission confirmed that the legal basis would cover education, research and competitiveness. Postgraduate degrees would in fact be awarded by the participating institutions (possibly jointly between member states), rather than by the BIT itself. Secondment of resources would not mean amputation—there would have to be clear added value for the "home" institution. It was too early to have a debate about location or financing, but there should be no conflict with the European Research Council (which was a financing mechanism rather than a legal entity as the EIT would be).
	The EU financial contribution would be discussed at the next revision of the financial perspectives in 2008; however, the EIT would have to rely heavily on private funding.
	The Austrian presidency placed particular emphasis on discussions with the Western Balkans and widening the European area of education.
	Ministers stressed the importance of the Lisbon agenda for the Western Balkans noting that their participation in programmes such as the Lifelong Learning Programme, Tempus and Erasmus Mundus, would support essential educational reforms in those countries. The European Training Foundation had an important role in facilitating cooperation between the Western Balkans and the EU in the field of education and training.
	The UK supported EU enlargement and welcomed bilateral cooperation with Western Balkan countries on education issues. Qualification frameworks in the UK devolved nations, for example the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework, were a particular issue of interest where we might share good practice.
	The Western Balkan Ministers expressed a strong interest in participating in the work on the European Qualifications Framework as a means of supporting reforms and the development of lifelong learning strategies. The Western Balkan Ministers also shared the EU's priorities for higher education reform, and were actively implementing the Bologna process in their countries. The Ministers stressed the need for continued dialogue between the EU and the Western Balkans on European education policy matters and adopted a declaration setting out the key messages of their discussions
	Informal Meeting of Youth Ministers 29-31 March 2006

Anne McGuire: The Major Incident Investigation Board, set up by the Health and Safety Commission to supervise the investigation into the explosion and fire at Buncefield oil storage depot, published a progress report on 9 May. The investigation will include consideration of off-site and on-site risks, both of which will be taken into account by the board when making recommendations for future action.
	Work has been underway, since before the Buncefield incident, to consider the implications of new information about major hazard sites which HSE has gathered in compliance with the Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations (COMAH). The analysis of this information does not suggest that there is an increased likelihood of an accident occurring at any of these sites. It has, however, allowed HSE to understand the risks with more precision.
	The Cabinet Office had been co-ordinating the process. Information and analysis from the Buncefield investigation will be taken account of in this work, which will be the subject of consultation with stakeholders as soon as clear conclusions emerge, which is expected to be later this year.
	Benefit Fraud Inspectorate